Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel1 OS No. 72/2014
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT GAJWEL.
PRESENT : SRI RAVINDER SATTU, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Gajwel.
Tuesday, the 31 st day of December , 2019.
O.S.No. 72 of 2014
Between :-
Bandi Chandrakala W/o. Kishtaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Dacharam village, Gajwel mandal, Medak District. ….Plaintiff
A N D
Panjala Bikshapathi S/o. Malla Goud, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agri, R/o: Dacharam village, Gajwel mandal, Medak District.
….Defendant
This suit is coming up before me on 19.12.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Bhaskar, Counsel for the Plaintiff, and Sri V. Srinivas, counsel for defendant, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :-
-: J U D G M E N T :-
1.This is a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant into the agricultural land bearing Sy. No.83/A, to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., out of Ac 1-17 ½ gts., situated at Dacharam village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District, with the following boundaries:
East: Land of Vendors
West: Agriculture land of Bandi Ramulu
North: Singatam village shivar
South: Agriculture Land of Siddala Babu
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel2 OS No. 72/2014
2.The brief facts of Plaint :
i)The plaintiff is absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No.83/A, to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts., out of Ac 1-17 ½ gts., situated at
Dacharam village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District, herein after called suit schedule property.
ii)The plaintiff purchased the suit land from original owner Smt. Panjala Kamala,
W/o Narahari goud, vide document No. 7631/2013. The plaintiff was inducted into possession over the suit land on the date of sale, and since then she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment by raising dry crop in the suit land.
iii)The plaintiff applied for mutation of the suit land in her name before Tahasildar office, Gajwel, and the mutation proceeding is under process.
iv)The defendant who is stranger from the suit land, he does not have any right, title or interest over the suit land. He is trying to interfere with peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land. That on 12-07-2014, when the plaintiff and her family member working at the suit land, the defendant along with his men, illegally trespassed into the suit land and obstructed the plaintiff from cultivating the suit land.
The plaintiff could resist the illegal interference of the defendant and his men over the suit land with the help of her family members and other neighbors with great difficulty. That while leaving the suit land, the defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequence and warned the plaintiff that he will again come to the suit land and at any cost he will occupy the suit land. Hence the suit.
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel3 OS No. 72/2014 3 (i)The defendants filed written statement. The defendants submitted that
Smt.Panjala Kamala is the owner, pattedar and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No.83/A, to an extent of Ac 1-17 ½ gts., situated at Dacharam village,
Gajwel Mandal, Medak District. Smt. Kamala offered to sell that land in Sy.No. 83/A to an extent Ac 1-00 gts., out of Ac 1-17 ½ gts. to the defendant for her legal, personal and family necessities. The defendant and Kamala agreed and fixed the sale consideration for a tune of Rs. 3,70,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs Seventy thousand only) by negotiation. That on 15-11-2013 the defendant paid Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to Smt. Panjala Kamala towards part or sale consideration. That Smt. Panjala Kamala passed a receipt/agreement of sale and inducted the defendant into possession of the suit land. The defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase to till date by raising cotton crop. There is a stand in cotton crop raised by the defendant, though there is no registered sale deed. Smt. Panjala Kamala further received an amount of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) from the defendant and executed an agreement of sale dated 09-01-2014 in favour of defendant in the presence of witnesses. Thus Smt. Panjala Kamala received an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as part of sale consideration acknowledging the agreement of sale dated 09-01-2014. Smt. Panjala Kamala agreed to execute perfect registered sale deed by the date of coming Shivarathri festival by receiving the balance sale consideration amount.
ii)The defendant has been requesting and demanding Smt. Panjala Kamala to receive the balance sale consideration and execute perfect registered sale deed. He is under bonafide intention that she receive balance sale consideration and execute document.
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel4 OS No. 72/2014 iii)That on enquiry he came to know that the plaintiff and Smt. Panjala Kamala colluded with each fraudulently brought into existence of sham, bogus and nominal registered sale deed no. 7631/2013 to defeat the rights of defendant. The sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh fifty thousand only) which is very less than sale price fixed for the suit land by the defendant. It is clearly shows there is a collusion. The plaintiff do not got any right.
iv)The defendant submitted that he filed OS No. 85/2014 on the file of Hon’ble
Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet against Smt. Panjala Kamala and Bandi Chandrakala,
plaintiff herein for specific performance of sale. The plaintiff herein received summons and engaged counsel. The suit is pending.
v)That on application made by plaintiff to the Tahasildar office, Gajwel for mutation of the suit land in the name of plaintiff. The Tahasildar, Gajwel issued notice in file no. 470/2014 to the defendant calling for objections. The defendant filed detained comprehensive counter with all the above true facts. The same is pending
before the Tahasildar office, Gajwel. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
4.Heard both sides. No settlement arrived. Perused the record. The following issues framed for trial:
ISSUES:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of suit or not?
2.Whether the defendants tried to interfere into the possession of plaintiff or not?
3.To what relief?
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel5 OS No. 72/2014
5.Heard learned counsel for plaintiff. Learned counsel for defendant filed written arguments.
6.The plaintiff is examined as PW1, and exhibited Ex.A1 to A10. In support of plaintiff case she got examined Bandi Ramulu and Bandi Kanakaiah as PW2 and
PW3.
7.The defendant is examined as Dw1 and exhibited Ex B1 to B8. In support of defendant’s case he got examined Dw2 to Dw18 namely Panjala Balanarsa goud/Dw2, Yeleshwaram Chinna Rajaiah/Dw3, Gurrala Sathaiah/Dw4, Thumma
Jahangeer/Dw5, Siddala Babulu/Dw6, Neela Anjaneyulu/Dw7, Nimma
Bikshapathi/Dw8, Yeleshwaram Pedda Parasharamulu/Dw9, Yeleshwaram
Yadaiah/Dw10, Karrolla Ramesh/DW11, Mamidala Narsimlu/Dw12, Mamidala
Bikshapathi/Dw13, Thumma Balanarsaiah/Dw14, Jupally Shivaiah/Dw15,
Yeleshwaram Chinna Mallaiah/Dw16, Yeleshwaram Rajaiah/Dw17 and Yeleshwaram
Chinna Parasharamulu/Dw18.
ISSUE No.1:-
8.The plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit which is nothing but replica of plaint. Hence need not to be reproduced. She relied Ex.A1 is CC of pahani for the year 2004-05. Ex.A2 is CC of pahani for the year 2006-07. Ex.A3 is CC of pahani for the year 2008-09. Ex.A4 is CC of pahani for the year 2009-10. Ex.A5 is pahani for fasli 1423. Ex.A6 is pahani for fasli 1424. Ex.A7 is original sale deed No. 7631/2013.
Ex.A8 is CC of rectification deed No. 4614/14. Ex.A9 is original mutation proceeding
A/868/2016 dt. 11.07.2016. Ex.A10 is pahani for fasli 1426.
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel6 OS No. 72/2014
9.The DW1 filed chief examination which is nothing but written statement hence need not to be reproduced. The DW1 relied Ex.B1 is CC of unregistered agreement
dt. 15.11.2013. Ex.B2 is CC of unregistered agreement dt. 09.01.2014. Ex.B3 is CC
of registered sale deed No. 7631/2013. Ex.B4 is CC of legal notice dt. 10.06.2014.
Ex.B5 is CC of postal receipts dt. 10.06.2014. Ex.B6 is CC of returned postal cover.
Ex.B7 is CC of acknowledgment of Panjala Kamala. Ex.B8 is CC of acknowledgment of Bandi Chandrakala.
10.The PW2 who is third party filed chief examination affidavit and deposed that he know the parties to the case; the plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction in
Sy.No. 83/A, to an extent of Ac. 1-00 out of Ac. 1-17 gts, situated at Dacharam village of Gajwel mandal. The plaintiff is owner, pattedar and possessor of the same land bounded by :
East:Land of Panjala Kamala
West :Agricultural land of Bandi Ramulu (myself)
North :Singatam village shivar
South :Agricultural land of Siddala Babu.
Further deposed that plaintiff purchased the suit land from Panjala Kamala through registered document and inducted into possession and enjoying possession.
Further deposed that defendant is stranger to the suit land having no right and trying to interfere with his peaceful possession over the suit land. Further deposed that defendant never cultivated the suit land. Finally deposed that he his having land on western side to the suit land.
11.PW3 who is third party filed chief examination affidavit and deposed that he know the parties to the case; the plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction in
Sy.No.83/A, to an extent of Ac. 1-00 out of Ac. 1-17 gts, situated at Dacharam village
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel7 OS No. 72/2014 of Gajwel mandal. The plaintiff is owner, pattedar and possessor of the same land bounded by :
East:Land of Panjala Kamala
West:Agricultural land of Bandi Ramulu
North:Singatam village shivar
South:Agricultural land of Siddala Babu.
Further deposed that plaintiff purchased the suit land from Panjala Kamala through registered document and inducted into possession and enjoying possession.
Further deposed that defendant is stranger to the suit land having no right and trying to interfere with his peaceful possession over the suit land. Further deposed that defendant never cultivated the suit land. Finally deposed that he his having land on northern side to the suit land.
12.Let us focus chief evidence of DW2 to 18. DW2 who is third party deposed that he know the plaintiff and defendants vendor namely Panjala Kamala and suit land. He deposed that on 15.11.2013, Panjala Kamala, and her husband agreed to sell the suit land bearing Sy. No. 83/A,to an extent Ac. 1-00 gts @ Rs. 3,70,000/- per acre. On the same day the defendant paid Rs. 30,000/- to Panjala Kamala, towards advance amount. Sri Juttu Mallaiah, scribed receipt. Panjala Kamala, and her husband signed on it. Himself, P. Venka Goud, and P. Yadagiri, attested the document. Tumma Balamallaiah, Yeleshwaram Rajaiah and others of village present. The same is known to many of the villagers including plaintiff and her husband. Further submitted that on 09.01.2014 the defendant paid further amount of
Rs. 70,000/- to Panjala Kamala in continuation of Rs. 30,000/- and Panjala Kamala received the amount by executing a document in his presence in respect of sale transaction in Sy. No. 83/A to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts. P. Kamala agreed to receive the balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed on or before coming Shivaratri festival. To that effect Juttu Mallaiah, scribed a document on stamp
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel8 OS No. 72/2014 paper of wroth Rs. 100. Panjala Kamala and her husband and defendant signed on the same document. Himself, P. Yadagiri and P. Balanarsa Goud, attested the document and Panjala Kamala and her husband delivered the peaceful possession of suit schedule property to the defendant defendant is in possession by raising crops. Bandi Chandrakala, got sham, bogus, nominal sale deed without possession.
13.PW3 who is third party deposed that he know the plaintiff and defendants vendor namely Panjala Kamala, and suit land. He deposed that on 15.11.2013,
Panjala Kamala, and her husband agreed to sell the suit land bearing Sy. No. 83/A,to an extent Ac. 1-00 gts @ Rs. 3,70,000/- per acre. On the same day the defendant paid Rs. 30,000/- to Panjala Kamala, towards advance amount. Sri Juttu Mallaiah, scribed receipt. Panjala Kamala and her husband signed on it. P.Venka Goud, P.
Yadagiri and P. Balanarsa Goud, attested the document. Tumma Balamallaiah, himself/Yeleshwaram Rajaiah and others of village present. The same is known to many of the villagers including plaintiff and her husband. Further deposed that on 09.01.2014 the defendant paid further amount of Rs. 70,000/- to Panjala Kamala, in continuation of Rs. 30,000/- and Panajala Kamala, received the amount by executing a document in his presence in respect of sale transaction in Sy. No. 83/A to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts. P. Kamala agreed to receive the balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed on or before coming Shivaratri festival. To that effect
Juttu Mallaiah scribed a document on stamp paper of wroth Rs. 100. Panjala
Kamala and her husband and defendant signed on the same document. P. Yadagiri and P. Balanarsa Goud attested the document and Panjala Kamala, and her husband delivered the peaceful possession of suit schedule property to the defendant, defendant is in possession by raising crops. Himself and other villagers present. Bandi Chandrakala, got sham, bogus, nominal sale deed without possession.
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel9 OS No. 72/2014
14.The chief examination of affidavits of DW4 to 18, are in one chorus, hence need not to be reproduced, but for better understanding contents of chief examination of DW4 is here in after produced.
“He know the parties to the suit, vendor namely Panjala Kamala and her husband namely Nara Hari and suit land, further deposed that he is having agricultural land near to the suit schedule property. He know that defendant purchased suit land from Smt. Panjala Kamala under agreement of sale and paid
Rs.1,00,000/- towards part sale consideration of total sale consideration of
Rs.3,70,000/- in two occasions. Smt. Panjala Kamala, inducted the defendant into suit land and the defendant is in peaceful possession of suit land from the date of purchase by raising cotton and maize crops. There is a standing crop in the suit land raised by defendant. He never see Bandi Chandrakala cultivating the suit land”.
15.Undisputed fact is that Smt. Panjala Kamalamma, was original pattedar and owner to an extent of Ac. 1-17 ½ gts in Sy. No. 83/A, situated in Dacharam village.
To see whether there is any collusion or not?. It is better to appreciate the statement of DW1 as well as pleadings. The defendant pleaded at para No. 7(i) that Smt.
Panjala Kamala, was original pattedar and owner to an extent of Ac. 1-17 ½ gts in
Sy. No. 83/A, situated in Dacharam village. Before filing of the suit the defendant issued legal notice under Ex.B4, wherein the defendant admitted ownership of
Panjala Kamala. There is no denial from DW1 to 18 and PW1 to 3, as to the ownership of Panjala Kamala. Therefore, Panjala Kamalamma is original pattedar in
Sy. No. 83/A, to an extent of Ac. 1-17 ½ gts, is proved.
15.Now the question is whether defendant got possession through Ex.B1, B2 dt.
15.11.2013 and 09.01.2014 or not from Panajala Kamalamma?. In a suit for perpetual injunction, burden lies on plaintiff to prove possession, it cannot be shifted to defendant. As seen from pleadings and admission of DW1, the onus shifted to defendant.
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel10 OS No. 72/2014
16.DW1 proved Ex.B1/Sadabainama, Ex.B2/agreement, which are secondary evidence. Originals are in OS No. 85/2014 on the file of Hon’ble VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet. This is a suit for perpetual injunction so that it is inevitable to look the contents under Ex.B1 whether possession was delivered or not.
The true translation of Ex.B1, from Telugu to English is as follows:
“On 15.11.2013,Friday Smt. Panajala Kamala W/o Nara hari
Goud, Dacharam village, Gajwel mandal, Medak District, here by executed a document in favour of Panjala Bikshapathi S/o.
Dulla Goud, Dacharam village, Gajwel mandal, Medak District, namely Sadabainama, which is contending to sale that her own patta land situated at Gundlagadda, extent Ac. 1-00 gts, out of
Sy. No. 83/A, and agreed sale consideration per acre Rs.
3,70,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand only). She received Rs. 30,000/- as earnest money . She agreed to receive balance amount fourth coming Shivaratri. She further agreed to give upperside land (in Telugu Meedibanduku) she agreed to abide the contents of documents. She relinquished her or her legal heir right. This document is written in the presence of four elders without fear or coercion”
17.As per contents of Ex.B1, Panjala Kamala who is non other than vendor of plaintiff herein. Panajla Bikshapathi who is non other than defendant herein. The land is undisputed.
18.As per content under Ex.B1, that she could give upper side land clearly inferred that possession was not delivered to defendant herein on 15.11.2013.
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel11 OS No. 72/2014
19.Let us see Ex.B2, which is subsequent to Ex.B1 and executed on 09.01.2014.
Further DW1 to DW18 deposed in their chief examination that Panjala Kamala and her husband Nara Hari Goud, delivered the suit land to Panjala Bikshapathi. The true translation from Telugu to English is as follows:
“On 09.01.2014, Thursday, Smt. Panajala Kamala W/o Narahari Goud,
Dacharam village, Gajwel mandal, Medak District, here by executed a document in favour of Panjala Bikshapathi S/o. Dulla Goud, Dacharam village, Gajwel mandal,
Medak District, she agreed to sale that her own patta land situated at Gundlagadda, extent Ac. 1-00 gts, out of Sy. No. 83/A, and agreed sale consideration per acre Rs.
3,70,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand only). Earlier as per sadabainama/simple sale deed in respect of same land, she received Rs. 30,000/- as earnest money. She now received Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only), thus total Rs. 1,00,000/-. Balance agreed amount to be paid before fourth coming
Shivaratri. This document is written in the presence of four elders without fear or coercion”
20.Ex.B2, is a continuation document to Ex.B1. On careful perusal of Ex.B1 and
B2, there is no recital of delivery of possession to defendant intimately and inextricably. Hence Ex.B1 and B2, are not required stamp duty as per proviso sec.47 of Indian Stamp Act, on par with sale. Therefore, those are admissible in evidence.
21.DW2, is attesting witness to the Ex.B1 & B2. During his cross examination also firmly stated that he stood as attesting witness in the document which is executed by Panjala Kamala in favour of Panjala Bikshapathi. He denied suggestion made to him that he did not stand as attesting witness to two documents. The other two attesting witnesses P. Yada Goud, P. Venka Goud and P. Yadagiri are not examined.
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel12 OS No. 72/2014
22.Let us see the oral evidence of DW3 to 18, who are third parties. The relevant statements in cross examination are as follows:
i)DW3, ignored about the document executed by Panajala Kamala in favour of Bandi Chandrakala. Once defendant himself admitted document executed by Kamala in favour of Chandrakala how this witness ignored. Therefore he is nothing but parrot speaking witness as to possession only.
ii)DW4, ignored date of purchase by Bikshapathi. He came to know through
Bikshapathi that he Bikshapathi purchased suit land. He does not know about the registered document between P. Kamala and Chandrakala. He is also parrot speaking witness as to possession only because his statements contrary to chief examination.
iii)DW5, ignored date of purchase by Bikshapathi. He does not remember date, time of purchase by Bikshapathi. He ignored registered sale deed of Chandrakala.
He is also parrot speaking witness as to possession only because his statements contrary to chief examination.
iv)DW6, do not know whether Bikshapathi, got registration or not but he is in possession. He is also parrot speaking witness.
v)DW7 stated that there was a agreement from Kamala to Bikshapathi, but he do not know in which year it was taken. His evidence contrary to chief examination.
vi)DW8 fairly stated that he came to know that Bikshapathi purchased from
Kamala as villagers are chit chatting. Hence he is hearsay witness.
vii)DW9, do not know date, time of purchase by Bikshapathi, his evidence is also contrary to chief examination . Further he ignored sale deed between Kamala and
Chandrakala.
viii)DW10, stated that Bikshapathi brought him to court and he was present at the time of sale transaction. His evidence is some what relevant in proof of agreement
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel13 OS No. 72/2014 between Kamala and Bikshapathi. But utter surprisingly ignored about registered document between Kamala and Chandrakala. Now his evidence is discarded because he is also parrot speaking witness.
On careful perusal of statements of DW4 to 10, one fact came on record that there was a quarrel between Bikshapathi and Kamala, regarding the suit land more or less sale by Kamala, to Chandrakala instead of Bikshapathi.
ix)DW11, stated that Bikshapathi brought him to court. He heard that Kamala executed document to Bikshapathi. Therefore he is hearsay witness.
x)DW12, stated that he does not have idea of sale transaction but it might be in 2013. The document was simple sale deed on white paper. He came to know that
Kamalamma sold to Chandrakala. His evidence is supporting to the extent of execution of document in favour of Bikshapathi.
xi)DW13, stated that panchayath between Kamala and Bikshapathi regarding the suit land and Kamala sold to Chandrakala instead of Bikshapathi. He was not attesting witness to the document. His evidence supporting to the extent of execution of document in favour of Bikshapathi.
xii)DW14 is a hearsay witness since he heard that land sold to Bikshapathi, hence his evidence is useless. DW15, resiled from his chief examination affidavit.
xiii)DW16 who came to rescue defendant and filed his chief examination affidavit but to utter surprise resiled from his chief examination affidavit. However, he identified his signature on chief examination under Ex.C1. Therefore, his evidence is no useful to defendant.
xiv)DW17 fairly stated that he does not know case facts. DW18, came to know about the sale through one Patel, hence he his also hearsay witness.
To say DW4 to 18, are tutored witnesses, it is evident that DW4 to 10 are faced cross examination on 28.11.2019 and stated that quarrel between Kamala and Bikshapathi, regarding sale. To utter surprise, DW11 to 15, cross examined on 29.11.2019, denied suggestion made to them that quarrel between Kamala and
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel14 OS No. 72/2014
Bikshapathi. During the gap of one day, the DW11 to 15, were tutored to deny quarrel. Likewise DW17 and 18, also denied quarrel between Kamala and
Bikshapathi. Finally, DW16 got fear to say false as such he disowned his chief examination.
23.On careful perusal of statements of DW3 to 18, I came to conclusion that
Panjala Kamala, executed Ex.B1 & B2, in respect of suit land without possession.
24.If we see the suit schedule property than it is appeared that eastern side vendor’s land ie., Panjala Kamala. As per clear content under Ex.B1, it was agreed to transfer upper side (meedibanduku) clearly established that western side land ie,
Ac. 1-00 gts, out of Ac. 1-17 ½ gts agreed to be sold to the defendant herein.
Smt.Chandrakala, registered the western side land to the plaintiff herein under
Ex.A1.
25.The defendant is able to establish that said Kamalamma, executed Ex.B1 on 15.11.2013 and again executed Ex.B1 on 09.01.2015. During 15.11.2013 to 09.01.2015, the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Panjala Kamalamma, through registered document under Ex.A1, on 06.12.2013. As I discussed above that as per
Ex.B1& B2,possession was not delivered to defendant. The oral evidence of DW1 to 18 is not substantive piece of evidence to show possession of defendant. Therefore
Ex.A1, which is registered one and prevail over simple sale deeds ie., Ex.B1 &
B2,thus the plaintiff has successfully got possession from her vendor Panjala
Kamalamma. Accordingly the issue No.1, is answered in favour of plaintiff.
26.However, the plaintiff relied Ex.A8 to A10. On careful perusal of Ex.A8 to A10, it is proved that those documents brought into existence after filing of the suit.
Ex.A8, which is the rectification deed. The defence is also not disputed about the
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel15 OS No. 72/2014
Survey number accordingly Ex.A8 is corroborating suit survey number. But the defendant categorically pleaded in written statement that Tahsildar, issued notice vide file No.470/2014, calling objections to the defendant herein. The mutation if any should be in pursuance of file No. 470/2014 only since plaintiff applied for mutation and Tahsildar initiated proceedings vide proceeding No. 470/2014. There is no rejoinder denying proceeding No. 470/2014 by plaintiff. But Ex.A9, initiated vide proceeding No. A/868/2016 dt. 11.07.2016, and it is not that of proceeding No.
470/2014. Therefore, Ex.A9, came into existence in the year 2016 without knowledge of defendant. Obviously ExA10 in pursuance of Ex.A9. Therefore, Ex.A9 and A10 contrary to first proceeding No. 470/2014 thereby no useful to the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2:-
27.The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant without having any right tried to interfere into suit land on 12.07.2014. The cause of action is rebutted by defendants by filing Ex.B4, legal notice dt. 10.06.2014. Obviously legal notice by defendant is prior to alleged cause of action of this suit ie., 12.07.2014. Further learned defence counsel elicited from the mouth of plaintiff that she received summons from Hon’ble
Senior civil Judge’s court, Siddipet filed by Bikshapathi/defendant herein before filing
this case; she appointed advocate in Siddipet; after appointing advocate in Siddipet she filed this case. Therefore, it is crystal clearly proved that after issuance of legal notice under Ex.B4, from the defendant and receipt of summons from Siddipet Court, the plaintiff cooked up story with concocted cause of action filed this case.
Accordingly the plaintiff suppressed the material fact that a case is filed against plaintiff and her vendor Panajala Kamala, is pending before Hon’ble Sr. Civil Court,
Siddipet in respect of same suit land.
28.The learned counsel for defendant relied ruling reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 197 in between M/s Seemax Construction Private Limited Vs. State Bank of India and another. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, at para No.10, held as follows:
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel16 OS No. 72/2014 “The suppression of material fact by itself is a sufficient ground to decline the discretionary relief of injunction. A party seeking discretionary relief has to approach the court with clean hands and is required to disclose all material facts which may, one way or the other, affect the decision. A person deliberately concealing material facts from court is not entitled to any discretionary relief. The court can refuse hear such person on merits. A person seeking relief of injunction is required to make
honest disclosure of all relevant statement of facts otherwise it
would amount to an abuse of the process of the court”.
29.I would not hesitate to take another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 (1) ALD 103 between Ramjas Foundation and other Vs. Union of
India and other. Hon’ble Supreme court held at para No.14 is as follows:
“The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under
Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. In Dalglish v. Jarvie 2 Mac. & G.
231, 238, Lord Langdale and Rolfe B. observed: "It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction; and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring forward. In
Castelli v. Cook (1849) 7 Hare, 89, 94 Wigram V.C. stated the rule in the following words: "A plaintiff applying ex parte comes under a contract with the Court that he
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel17 OS No. 72/2014 will state the whole case fully and fairly to the Court. If he fails to do that, and the
Court finds, when other party applies to dissolve the injunction, that any material fact has been suppressed or not property brought forward, the plaintiff is told the Court will not decide on the merits, and that, as he has broken faith with the Court, the injunction must go." In Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus Brothers & Company 55 L.T. 802, 803, Kay J. held as under: "I have always maintained, and I think it most important to maintain most strictly, the rule that, in exparte applications to this Court, the utmost good faith must be observed. If there is an important misstatement, speaking for myself, I have never hesitated, and never shall hesitate until the rule is altered, to discharge the order at once, so as to impress upon all persons who are suitors in this
Court the importance of dealing in good faith in the Court when exparte applications are made." The same rule was restated by Scrutton L., J in R. v. Kensington Income
Tax Commissioner (1917) 1 K.B. 486. The facts of that case were that in April, 1916, the General Commissioners for the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the district of Kensington made an additional assessment upon the applicant for the year ending
April 5, 1913, in respect of profits arising from foreign possessions. On May 16, 1916, the applicant obtained a rule is directed to the Commissioners calling upon them to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be awarded to prohibit them from proceeding upon the assessment upon the ground that the applicant was not a subject of the King nor resident within the United Kingdom and had not been in the
United Kingdom, except for temporary purposes, nor with any view or intent of establishing her residence therein, nor for a period equal to six months in any one year. In the affidavit on which the rule was obtained the applicant stated that she was a French subject and resident in France and was not and had not been a subject of the United Kingdom nor a resident in the United Kingdom; that during the year ending April 5, 1913, she was in the United Kingdom for temporary purposes on visits for sixty-eight days; that she spent about twenty of these days in London at her brother's house, 213, King's Road, Chelsea, generally in company with other guests of her brother; that she was also in the United Kingdom during the year ending April 5, 1914, for temporary purposes on visits, and spent part of the time at 213, King's
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel18 OS No. 72/2014
Road aforesaid; and that since the month of November, 1914, she had not been in the United Kingdom. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the Commissioners and of thesurveyoroftaxes,whoshowedIndianKanoon- http://indiankanoon.org/doc/265836/ 11Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2010 cause against the rule nisi, and from the affidavit of the applicant in reply, it appeared that in February, 1909, a leasehold house, 213, King's
Road, Chelsea, had been taken in the name of the applicant's brother. The purchase-money for the lease of the house and the furniture amounted to 4000l., and this was paid by the applicant out of her own money. The accounts of household expenses were paid by the brother and subsequently adjusted between him and the applicant. The Divisional Court without dealing with the merits of the case discharged the rule on the ground that the applicant had suppressed or misrepresented the facts material to her application. The Divisional Court observed that the Court, for its own protection is entitled to say "we refuse this writ of prohibition without going into the merits of the case on the ground of the conduct of the applicant in bringing the case
before us". On appeal, Lord Cozens-Hardy M.R. and Warrington L.J. approved the
view taken by the Divisional Court. Scrutton L.,J. who agreed that the appeal should be dismissed observed:
"and it has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an exparte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts - facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it – the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement."
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel19 OS No. 72/2014
30.Taking into the ratio from above two rulings that the plaintiff suppressed the fact filed the present suit. Thus plaintiff is not entitled any relief muchless preventive relief. Accordingly Issue No.2, is answered against Plaintiff.
31.The defendant relied another ruling reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 between Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchireddy. Hon’ble Supreme court laid down guidelines at para No. 17. With due respect to Hon’ble Supreme court the ration is not applicable to present case.
ISSUE No.3:-
32.Though the plaintiff is able to establish her possession over the suit schedule property but she suppressed the material fact and issue No.2, answered against plaintiff.
In the result the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of December 2019.
PRL. JCJ-CUM-JMFC,
GAJWEL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF
PW-1 : Bandi Chandrakala
PW-2 : Bandi Ramulu
PW-3 : Bandi Kanakaiah
DEFENDANT
DW1 : Panjala Bikshapathi
DW2 : Panjala Balnarsa Goud
DW3 : Yeleshwaram Chinna Rajaiah
DW4 : Gurrala Sathaiah
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel20 OS No. 72/2014
DW5 : Thumma Jahangir
DW6 : Shindhala Babulu
DW7 : Neela Anjaneyulu
DW8 : Nimma Bixapathi
DW9 : Yeleshwaram Pedda Parusha Ramulu
DW10 : Yeleshwaram Yadaiah
DW11 : Karrolla Ramesh
DW12 : Mamidala Narsimlu
DW13 : Mamidala Bixapathi
DW14 : Thumma Balnarsaiah
DW15 : Jupally Shivvaiah
DW16 : Yeleshwaram Chinna Mallaiah
DW17 : Yeleshwaram Rajaiah
DW18 : Yeleshwaram Chinna Parusha Ramulu
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1 : CC of pahani for the year 2004-05.
Ex.A2 : CC of pahani for the year 2006-07.
Ex.A3 : CC of pahani for the year 2008-09.
Ex.A4 : CC of pahani for the year 2009-10.
Ex.A5 : Pahani for fasli 1423.
Ex.A6 : Pahani for fasli 1424.
Ex.A7 : Original sale deed No. 7631/2013.
Ex.A8 : CC of rectification deed No. 4614/14.
Ex.A9 : Original mutation proceeding A/868/2016 dt. 11.07.2016.
Ex.A10: Pahani for fasli 1426.
DEFENDANT
Ex.B1 : CC of unregistered agreement dt. 15.11.2013.
Ex.B2 : CC of unregistered agreement dt. 09.01.2014.
Ex.B3 : CC of registered sale deed No. 7631/2013.
Ex.B4 : CC of legal notice dt. 10.06.2014.
Ex.B5 : CC of postal receipts dt. 10.06.2014.
Ex.B6 : CC of returned postal cover.
Ex.B7 : CC of acknowledgment of Panjala Kamala.
Ex.B8 : CC of acknowledgment of Bandi Chandrakala.
Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel21 OS No. 72/2014
PRL. JCJ-CUM-JMFC,
GAJWEL. Prl. JCJ-cum-JMFC, Gajwel22 OS No. 72/2014